Standing Committee A

[Mr. Bill O'Brien in the Chair]

School Transport Bill

Clause 1 - School travel schemes

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 53, in 
clause 1, page 2, line 12, at end insert— 
 '(3) A school travel scheme must include arrangements to ensure that any person engaged in driving or escorting a child with special educational needs or a disability to and from school shall be required to have an enhanced Criminal Records Bureau check before they start work. 
 (4) A school travel scheme must include arrangements to ensure that any person engaged in driving or escorting a child with special educational needs or a disability to and from school shall be required to receive appropriate disability equality training.'. —[Mr. Hoban.] 
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Bill O'Brien: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments:
 No. 57, in 
clause 1, page 2, line 30, at end insert— 
 'Children with mobility difficulties 
 3A (1) If a child has mobility difficulties, the scheme authority must provide transport to and from the school at which he is a registered pupil, regardless of whether the child lives inside the walking distance as defined in section 444(5). 
(2) For the purposes of this paragraph ''mobility difficulties'' means that a child cannot walk to and from school with safety and reasonable comfort because of his special educational needs or disability.'. 
No. 58, in 
clause 1, page 2, line 36, leave out from 'scheme' to end of line and insert— 
 '(a) for a protected child is provided free of charge; and 
 (b) for a child with a disability or special educational needs that incurs additional expense, and where this provision is necessary because a child has a disability or special educational need, is paid for by the scheme authority.'. 
No. 44, in 
clause 1, page 3, line 4, at end insert 
 ', or 
 '(e) who has mobility problems which are certified by a doctor and who lives within the statutory walking distance to the nearest suitable school.'. 
No. 46, in 
clause 1, page 3, line 4, at end insert 
 ', or 
 '(g) who is a child with special educational needs attending a school which is deemed to be suitable by virtue of the provision made for particular needs.'. 
No. 60, in 
clause 1, page 3, line 41, at end insert—
 '(c) report to the appropriate national authority annually concerning the impact of the school travel scheme on children with special educational needs and on disabled children, including the number of such children for whom transport to and from school is currently provided by that scheme authority and what charges, if any, have been made for transport provided to such children.'.

Roger Casale: I welcome you to the Committee, Mr. O'Brien, and I look forward to working under your chairmanship.
 Before the Committee adjourned this morning, I explained why I supported the spirit of amendment No. 53, tabled by the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), and of amendments Nos. 57 and 58, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). We were enjoying quite a degree of cross-party consensus, having identified very serious flaws and deficiencies in the way the legislation is currently drafted in relation to protection, in particular of vulnerable children—those with special educational needs—and their transportation to school. However, while I was voicing my support for the spirit of those amendments, I was also encouraged by the prospect that we will address these matters again during the progress of the Bill, as the specific measures proposed in the amendments may not be the best and most effective way of dealing with the serious problem that, fortunately, we all now agree exists and needs to be dealt with. 
 Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 are probing amendments, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to probe further in relation to amendment No. 53, but I first want to comment briefly on amendment No. 60. However we decide to resolve the problems that have been identified in relation to the safety of children with special educational needs travelling between school and home, I am clear that there is a need for constant monitoring at a national level of what happens in different situations around the country. It may well be the case that the solution lies at the local level and not, as amendment No. 53 proposes, with the improved bureaucracy required to enhance criminal records checks. However, we cannot simply leave the problem to be sorted out at the local level and walk away from it. We must have a process whereby we continuously monitor whether what is happening at the local level is up to the standards that we wish. 
 Amendment No. 60 would do just that. It would ensure both that scheme authorities operating such transport schemes report to national authorities on how school travel schemes have affected disabled children and those with SEN, and that the appropriate national authority has the information that is necessary to determine whether the school travel scheme is having a positive or a detrimental impact on disabled children and those with SEN—who, as we have seen, are particularly vulnerable. In turn, that information would allow the appropriate national authority to make an informed decision as to whether the scheme should be allowed to continue or be revoked. Given that the scheme authority should collect the information required by the amendment as 
 a matter of course, it should not impose any excessive bureaucratic burden, but it would ensure greater accountability. 
 I hope that the Minister will give appropriate attention to the need to have proper accountability at the national level, even though we are likely to look to the local level to deliver the improvements we need.

David Drew: I rise to support my hon. Friend's comments. I wish to make a couple of observations about this group of amendments. As my hon. Friend intimated both before and after the Committee's short intermission, the intention is to try to ascertain from the Government that there are some lines of security, so that we know that we are not going to tamper unduly with the funding mechanism, specifically with regard to the physical or mental needs of special needs children when they travel to school. If such children have to travel further because they have a specialist education, they must not be penalised for that. There is an unwritten agreement on that across local authorities. I do not know of any authorities that would deliberately penalise a child with a particular need by loading them with additional transport costs.
 Choice is a word that some of us have fears about, but these days it is part of our vocabulary as politicians. I would not want it to be seen that parents could be deemed at least partly responsible for making a choice, based on whether they could afford to supplement transport costs, about whether their child should go to a better and more specialist provider. I would like the Minister to allay such fears and assure us that there will not be any charging mechanism that will be predisposed to consider means as a way of deciding on appropriate special needs education.

Mark Hoban: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not only through choice that parents might be required to pay more for school transport? If an education authority sought to reorganise the provision of special schools, as is the case in Gloucestershire at the moment, parents might have no choice but to pay more if schools were closed and provision was made further away from home.

David Drew: I could respond by referring to my local area; I get on well with the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), but we do not see eye to eye on this issue. I agree with that intervention. In my first intervention, I said that I considered reorganisation to be crucial and that there ought to be proper consultation on transport availability, and I have not changed my mind. It is crucial that no implication of disadvantage—that is, having to pay—should be linked to an arrangement agreed to by the parent if they thought that such an arrangement was the only sensible thing to come out of the reorganisation. One of the problems is that we tend to consider transport after reorganisation has happened, rather than considering it, and whether there are different ways of providing it, as one of the issues. I have always believed—I am careful not to go off the
 point, Mr. O'Brien—that, whenever possible, any form of education and support for people with disabilities is better provided locally. That way, the family structure can be kept in place. However, that is not always possible and on occasions people's special needs will mean that they have to travel or be domiciled elsewhere.
 I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will get the drift of what we say. We do not want to derail anything; the Government are listening, and I have been impressed by the consensual nature of the debate on what we are trying to do, which is to allow an experiment to take place, but with certain red lines so that parents do not feel that they will be made more vulnerable in what they face on behalf of their children because of a charging mechanism that is used in a punitive way. 
 I hope that the Minister will accept the spirit in which the amendments were tabled. In the wider community, there is concern among the disability organisations with which my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) and I have been in contact. We want an assurance so that we can know that the right decisions will be taken for the right reasons, and that money will not be used as a stick.

John Pugh: It was a morning of remarkable consensus, Mr. O'Brien, particularly on how much we were looking forward to your chairmanship.
 This is one of the biggest parts of the legislation that affects a large number of people with children with disabilities or special educational needs who have a stake in school transport. As far as everybody is concerned, those people also represent a critical section of the funding provided for school transport. Disability or special educational needs means two things with regard to school transport: first, there are longer distances to travel to an appropriate school and, secondly, there is genuine difficulty in travelling, whether or not that school is near or far. Both conditions can apply. However, given that disability kicks in like that and affects a key, vulnerable section of our community, we would all accept that people so affected should not have to pay for their condition. They should not have to pay for needing to go to a school that is further away, or for any difficulty in travelling that they experience as disabled people. 
 I think that the Government and the Opposition would agree about that—and if they did there would be that famed consensus—but the issue is whether the consensus is adequately reflected in the Bill. The Secretary of State has made the commitment that transport can be contained in a statement if it is essential for a child's education. However, the hon. Member for Fareham has also said—and I mentioned it on Second Reading—that the current philosophy of the Government is not so statement-driven, particularly when a more conciliatory, negotiated path is taken towards meeting special needs in other areas. 
 There is also a feeling on the part of many groups dealing with disabilities of all kinds that statements by themselves may not catch all and may not be sufficiently inclusive to cater for all deserving cases. 
 There is anxiety and doubt as to whether the basic principle that people should not have to pay to access education because of their disability is as sufficiently and securely enshrined in the Bill as it ought to be. It is easy to see where that anxiety is coming from, because people have considered the costs and looked at the cost pressures on local authorities and seen that there will be an understandable temptation to get those costs down. To some extent, under the guise of integration, which is a laudable desire, there might even be some poor provision smuggled in or disguised. That is a worry that the Minister could rectify by sharpening up the Bill and accepting some of the amendments. 
 I shall go into some of the detail in speaking to amendment No. 53, which has the laudable ambition of bringing in checks on the background of people who provide transport. Surely, nobody can fundamentally disagree with that; indeed, they must agree that that is done properly and effectively. The amendment also contains a specification, about which we have not spoken, that we should train transport providers. That is particularly welcomed by lobby groups, such as the autism groups, which recognise that dealing with people with such a disability is a skilled task, and understanding the needs and requirements of children with a range of abilities is fairly problematic. That is a laudable ambition, but I wonder whether, given the lack of supply of school transport, that need could be met overnight, or even met effectively in a reasonably short time scale, because many of the people on whom we rely at the moment are ordinary—but quite reliable and decent—taxi drivers, and the like. Amendment No. 53 raises some interesting points that are worthy of debate and consideration, and I would not want to say anything against the spirit in which it is moved. 
 Amendment No. 60 is almost essential. We want adequate reports on pilots from the point of view of special education and disability, and we must be mindful that we sometimes see best practice in pilots but on a further roll-out there is some deterioration and cutting of corners. We cannot always argue that there will be wholesale successful practice across the country if pilots are successful. However, there is no case for not monitoring the pilots adequately and fully.

Stephen Twigg: I join colleagues on both sides of the Committee in welcoming you to the chairmanship of the Committee, Mr. O'Brien.
 I would like first to speak to amendment No. 53 and then to make some general remarks about the other amendments in this group. Like all those who have spoken in this discussion, I accept that we have now come to perhaps the trickiest part of the proposal that we are putting before the House. The Committee's full consideration of the matter, the number of amendments tabled on it, and the wider public concern—of which we will all be aware—reflect that fact. I am confident that we can consider the issue well 
 today, but I also recognise that we will need to return to the subject at a later stage of the Bill's progress through this House and the other place. 
 On amendment No. 53, both the hon. Member for Fareham and my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon have put their case strongly. I particularly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon, who has been campaigning on the issue for some time locally, both in his constituency of Wimbledon and in the London borough of Merton. He has also raised the issue directly with Ministers and on the Floor of the House, and has raised it again today. He is giving a clear message that is absolutely relevant to the Bill: if the proposals before us are to work, they have to do so at the local level, but for them to work at the local level, there needs to be the most effective system of monitoring nationally. I certainly want to take away that message from this discussion, and I shall return to it soon. 
 The amendment would insert two new sub-paragraphs. One would require enhanced criminal background checks to be conducted on those driving or escorting children with SEN or disabilities before they start work, and the other would require such staff to receive disability equality training. As with a number of the issues that we discussed earlier, both the sub-paragraphs address important matters and focus in particular on the well-being of some of our most vulnerable school pupils. 
 The subjects of the amendments—Criminal Records Bureau checks for drivers and escorts, and training in disability equality—are issues that I know cause concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House and certainly to the Government. However, my argument is that both matters are already and adequately addressed either in existing legislation or in good practice guidance. Notwithstanding that, I give the Committee an undertaking that, through the prospectus and the implementation of the Bill—if it is successful in both Houses—those matters will be absolutely taken into account. 
 Arrangements for pre-employment checks were the subject of detailed discussions between the Home Office and other Departments before the establishment of the current system for disclosing criminal record information, which is set out in the Police Act 1997. The Department for Education and Skills guidance on preventing unsuitable people from working with children and young people makes it absolutely clear that all applicants for positions that are excepted from the provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 should be asked to declare any convictions, cautions or bind-overs that they have incurred, including any that would be regarded as spent under the Act in other circumstances. That includes any position in which the normal duties include caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge of children under the age of 18, and would certainly include both the taxi drivers and the escorts we are talking about. 
 In addition, taxi or private hire car drivers are subject to enhanced criminal record checks when they apply for a licence and each time they renew it. That is 
 not yet fully in operation for private hire vehicle drivers in London, but it will be by April 2006. Furthermore, the guidance to which I previously referred requires more than CRB checks to be carried out. I accept some of the concerns that have been raised about the CRB system not being watertight. Other checks are required before staff are recruited to work with children. 
 In addition to the CRB process, the guidance states clearly that potential employers should check an applicant's qualifications and references. That includes both professional and character references, and they should be checked direct from the referee and should include, importantly, the applicant's most recent employer. Potential employers should also look at an applicant's previous employment and should seek satisfactory explanations for gaps in their employment. If our guidance on recruitment is followed, and all those checks are carried out, including CRB checks, we shall be able to minimise the risks. 
 The hon. Member for Fareham made a specific and important point this morning about relief drivers. Our guidance makes it clear that relief drivers should also be checked before working with children. We advise that a pool of checked drivers are available to undertake relief duties. As for the first part of the amendment, I am confident that the necessary powers are in place. I accept what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon and the hon. Gentleman in that, for the powers to be fully used, we must ensure that the mechanisms available to us under the Bill and other provisions are used to best effect to ensure that that is happening at local level. I appreciate that that is not always the case and that more needs to be done in that respect. 
 The second part of the amendment relates to disability equality training. Escorts and drivers of children with disabilities need to have an appropriate understanding of a wide range of different issues and how circumstances can vary markedly from case to case. They range from training on the use of specialised equipment and how to administer certain forms of medication through to much broader issues in respect of disability equality and consideration of some of the barriers to involvement in society as well as some of the attitudes that can exclude disabled people. 
 The purpose behind the proposal of the hon. Member for Fareham is entirely laudable and one that I am sure all of us in Committee support. However, as with some of the matters we discussed earlier, my view is that we can best encourage disability equality training via the prospectus and other mechanisms that are available to us rather than adding the provision to the Bill. Nevertheless, I appreciate the Gentleman and his colleagues putting the issue before us because it reminds us of the importance of training being made available. However, in the light of what I have said, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment. 
 The general effect of amendments Nos. 57, 58, 44, 46 and 60 is to ensure that pupils with mobility problems or special educational needs that prevent them from walking to school should have transport provided and that they will either be protected from charges or protected from charges that are higher than those that would affect their peer groups travelling to maintained schools. Amendment No. 60 relates to accountability. It would require LEAs to report on the effect that school travel schemes are having on children with special educational needs or disabilities in the scheme areas. 
 I agree with hon. Members that it is completely unreasonable for local education authorities, were they to do so, to expect children with severe mobility difficulties or certain other forms of special educational needs to walk to school. For many children, that is simply not possible. Those children should already be provided with transport, when it is needed. The Bill requires scheme authorities to make travel arrangements that they consider appropriate for each child. It cannot, of course, be appropriate to do anything other than to provide transport for a child who cannot reasonably walk even a short distance. I give an undertaking to the Committee to carry out further work in that area, as the majority of people accept that it would be unjust if families of children with mobility difficulties were to find themselves having to pay for transport for them to get to school. I am anxious for the Bill to have a workable definition that we could add to the category of protected children. I undertake to report back on that specific aspect of the group of amendments.

John Pugh: If a child with mobility problems were integrated into a mainstream school, the Minister said that he would not be charged any more than a mainstream pupil. Presumably, however, he should be subsidised more than a mainstream pupil because there are difficulties in getting there. Does the Minister visualise a situation in which a travel scheme could occur in which two children—one able-bodied, the other disabled—attend the same mainstream school and are charged identical sums for accessing the school?

Stephen Twigg: Yes, depending on the incomes and financial circumstances of their families. If that aspect—which we will come on to later—is left aside, the purpose of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Wimbledon and for Stroud is to recognise that sometimes additional costs can be incurred by those with special needs and to make the point that it is unreasonable for the cost of transport to school to be higher for children with special educational needs than for the child at the neighbouring home or desk who does not have those special needs.

John Pugh: Is it correct that if, for example, the disabled child had to take a taxi whereas the able-bodied child could take the bus, the authority would look upon those cases differently in terms of their
 scheme because of the increased cost, but if they could access the school in the same way—if they got on the same bus—there would not be a problem?

Stephen Twigg: That is one part of the grey area that we are dealing with. I agree with the implication of the hon. Gentleman's words. The easiest way to think about this is to imagine two children who live next door to each other and study in the same class. If one of them has to go by taxi for reasons of disability or special educational needs and their neighbour can go on the bus, it seems unreasonable for the child with the disability or SEN to pay more simply because they travel by taxi. That is the issue I want us to consider further, and that is what I was referring to when I said we wanted to come back to the House with a workable definition.
 It is generally accepted that SEN provision is a large and growing part of the school transport budget. On Second Reading, the figure of 65 per cent. was used by the Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins). We dispute that figure; we think it is a bit lower, at about 40 per cent. Nevertheless, it is a substantial part of the spend. 
 We also know that the situation varies considerably from place to place and that SEN covers a broad spectrum of circumstances, as the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) mentioned. Pupils with statements of special educational needs may well have highly specialised transport needs; there may be oxygen dependency, or a requirement for measures to prevent pupils with brittle bone disease from sustaining injuries. In those cases, the statement will usually set out the type of transport that is needed, and the LEA will have to provide it free of charge. 
 Those are the simple cases where there is no dispute. I doubt that parents will apply for statements purely to become entitled to free school transport. The process of statementing is based on educational need, and applications are driven by a range of factors; it is unlikely that applications driven purely by the desire for free transport provision would go very far. 
 In other cases, pupils with special educational needs will be able to attend a mainstream school alongside their peers and share the same mode of transport. Pupils with severe dyslexia may fall into that category, as may some pupils who are blind or deaf if there is good provision in their local schools. We would expect pupils with those needs to be treated in the same way as their mainstream peers, although they may need escorts. Where there is a charging regime, we would expect equality of treatment. Indeed, we would encourage that because independent travel for pupils with SEN is often vital to their later life chances in terms of employment and full integration into society during adult life. 
 Those are the two ends of the spectrum and they are relatively easy to agree on. We come now to children in the middle of the spectrum, which is more difficult territory. Some pupils with special educational needs will have to travel to special schools or mainstream schools that have specialised units attached—indeed, this issue has already been raised. In those cases, 
 children may have to travel a significant distance to a suitable school, whereas there is a mainstream school within easy walking distance. I fully understand that parents in such circumstances may think that charges are unfair. However, we do not want to get into a position where we prescribe that pupils will automatically receive free transport to school. That could have some unintended consequences: for example, it could invalidate a family's claim for a Motability car. What is important about the proposals is that flexibility is at the heart of them so that arrangements can be made that suit the individual circumstances of children and their families. 
 As I have hinted, amendment No.58, which stands in the name of my two hon. Friends, provides us with the possible basis for a solution that at least meets some of the concerns that have been raised. They were followed up in the exchange with the hon. Member for Southport just now. 
 The provision for pupils with special educational needs is an important area and for that reason the prospectus requires scheme applicants to set out their arrangements for such pupils. That is an area that we will need to scrutinise carefully when we examine scheme applications. I cannot accept that every child with a special educational need should necessarily be protected from charges through the Bill. That would go too far. 
 Our overriding principle is that charging should be based on the ability to pay. However, for the reasons to which I have alluded, I recognise that that needs to be tempered in the case of pupils with special educational needs in a way that ensures that any charges are reasonable, and do not penalise families where their children have to travel some distance to school. That is very much the point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud. 
 We are holding helpful discussions with a range of organisations that represent different groups of pupils with special educational needs, particularly the Special Educational Consortium. As I am sure hon. Members know, it issued a carefully considered briefing document and press release in advance of our proceedings today. The purpose of those discussions is to identify whether it is possible to have a set of expectations that are acceptable across the spectrum of special educational needs to cater for pupils with such needs and to be affordable for local education authorities. 
 There is a further problem with amendment No. 46. If we made arrangements that allowed all pupils with special educational needs, whether or not they had a statement, to travel to any suitable school free of charge, we could find ourselves in the unintended position where parents might seek to get their child designated as a pupil with special educational needs simply to gain an entitlement to free transport. That could cause unnecessary bureaucracy and it might lead parents of pupils with minor learning differences to seek such designation. 
 My undertaking today is to do some further work in that area, because all Committee members would agree that it would be unjust if families of children with mobility difficulties or severe special educational needs had to pay for transport to take them to and from school, whereas their peer group were not charged or were able to walk. I will let the House know on Report how the discussions that we having with the Special Educational Consortium and others are progressing. 
 There is also an issue about children with special educational needs who are not attending their nearest suitable school, and that is an issue about which concern has been expressed during all parts of the debate. The concern applies under existing legislation and is not a consequence of the Bill. Amendment No.46 describes pupils 
''attending a school which is deemed to be suitable by virtue of the provision made for particular needs.''. 
That does not specify that the school has to be the closest one that can cater for the pupil with the special need. A parent could choose a school a considerable distance away rather than one with adequate provision that is closer to home. In some cases, a school that is further away may be named on a statement by agreement between parents and LEAs, with the agreement that parents will pay for the additional costs of the transport. That would put those parents in much the same position as any other parent who exercises preference in the education system. 
 If the Bill overturned existing agreements and principles, which, by and large, work well, and made all transport to special schools free, there could be unacceptable pressure on LEA budgets. That would be to the detriment of many other children whose transport needs have to be met out of a limited budget. 
 Amendment No. 60 details the general requirement for scheme authorities to provide reports as required. We have taken that approach because the schemes are expected to last for several years and monitoring requirements, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon reminded us, may need to be modified in the light of experience. We wanted to say clearly in the prospectus that approved schemes will be required to produce an annual report for the DFES or the National Assembly for Wales as appropriate, with statistics on home-to-school travel that analyse the effect that schemes have had in a number of respects, including on the important issue of reducing car use on the school run. A report should contain an account of what has gone well and badly, the views of key partners and financial annexes detailing the economics of the scheme.

Roger Casale: I am grateful for what the Minister has just said, because the monitoring process will be a key lever in rooting out the kind of problems that we have identified. We know that the problems are there and we need to be able to do something about them. The monitoring and annual reporting that the Minister has announced will go a great way towards dealing with those problems.

Stephen Twigg: I thank my hon. Friend for that. We also say in the prospectus that we expect that pilot authorities will put in place reliable systems for monitoring travel-to-school patterns, so we can make a thorough assessment of the overall impact of the travel scheme. The crucial point that is relevant to this group of amendments is that that assessment will enable us to look at the impact on pupils by category. That means that we can consider the difference that the scheme is making, particularly to some of the more vulnerable groups that we are addressing in this discussion of special educational needs and disability, and to those with which we will deal when we discuss low-income families and the protected category.
 We have also said that the DFES will commission an independent evaluation of English schemes that will draw together an analysis of each one, and provide evidence for the decision about whether to roll out the school travel scheme approach. Pilot authorities will be under an obligation to co-operate fully with that independent evaluation, so that it provides the greatest benefits possible to all local authorities. I hope that that approach demonstrates our desire to collect a wide range of information to evaluate the impact of the schemes, including the impact on those with special educational needs and/or disabilities, because that is important. 
 I hope that hon. Members from all parties agree that we can subscribe to moving forward on the basis of the consultation and discussion, which I have described, with those who represent the interests of those with special educational needs. As I have said, the purpose of those further discussions will be to find a flexible system for families of pupils with special educational needs that does not impose free transport with possible unintended consequences and brings benefits where they are appropriate. 
 Transport for pupils with special educational needs does not necessarily have to be provided free of charge. As I said, that is under discussion with one of the interested parties. We need fair arrangements that do not leave families with a child with special educational needs disadvantaged in comparison with other families with children attending mainstream schools. That is the nub of the issue in this debate and I hope that given what I have said, hon. Members will accept my assurances and not press the amendments.

Mark Hoban: I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. O'Brien. As you will see, consensus seems to be breaking out throughout the proceedings. I am sure that it will end at some point during the next three sittings, and we await that with trepidation.
 I think that all hon. Members listening to the Minister's reply would welcome his reassurances. In moving amendment No. 53 I referred to the somewhat bland and anodyne response that the Government gave to the Education and Skills Committee's report. The Minister has moved on from that. We await with interest his consultation with the Special Educational Consortium and hope that he comes up with a workable solution. 
 In his comments on amendment No. 53, the Minister referred to guidance that is in place. However, given the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Wimbledon, other hon. Members and the Special Educational Consortium, it seems that it is not working. The guidance needs to be tough, and the Bill provides the opportunity to consider it and make it more robust. The Minister has referred on several occasions to a revised prospectus. It would be helpful if he said whether that will be available before Report, so that we can see to what extent the reassurances that he has given on a number of issues have been reflected. 
 I welcome the Minister's commitment to considering a revised definition of mobility. That is important and would cover, as he indicated, not only those with physical disabilities but those with a condition that affects their ability, such as autism, which I referred to earlier. The Minister also touched on the ability to pay and on the basis of charging. We will come to those matters later, but I ask him to recognise—I am sure that he does—that many parents of children with special educational needs have other financial pressures. Some grants for equipment are means-tested; parents who do not meet that means test have to find significant sums from their own capital or income to buy specialist equipment. They also find that the respite care allocated from social services is insufficient for their needs and have to pay for top-ups. There are some complex arguments about affordability that need to be considered in the prospectus. 
 On amendment No. 46, I recognise the Minister's point about parents who have a school named in their statement but are required to pay for transport to it. Such a situation has arisen in my own constituency, in which a parent fought—rightly, in my view—for a particular school to be named; because that was further away than the nearest suitable scheme, the parent paid for the transport. It is good if one is in a position to afford that, but not every parent is, and I am concerned about how local authorities might interpret the word ''suitable'' in such situations. 
 Earlier, I gave the example of a school in Surrey with a language specialist unit that I visited yesterday. In Surrey, there are more statemented children with language difficulties who would like to go to such specialist units than can be fitted in. As an alternative, they might be told to go to the nearest school and have the support of a classroom assistant or learning support assistant. That would be suitable according to the Minister's arguments, but it might not be the best school for that child. We need to bear in mind that conflict with regard to suitability. 
 I should like to conclude on two points. First, the 65 per cent. figure cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale came from an impeccable source: the Department itself.

Vernon Coaker: Which part of the Department?

Mark Hoban: I am sure that the Secretary of State takes responsibility for all parts of the Department. I gather that the reference is on page 33 of the DFES's ''Travelling to School: a good practice guide.'' I am sure that that figure must be true.
 The Select Committee report gave a word of warning. I refer to paragraph 77: 
 ''Schemes will have to offer a complex range of transport facilities to suit the broad spectrum of need covered by the term 'SEN' and costs will necessarily increase as services get better at providing for pupils with the highest level of need. We agree with Mr Congdon in his assessment that the Bill does not primarily concern itself with the details of SEN transport and thus treats it in a manner that could produce unintended and detrimental consequences''. 
Mr. Congdon's words act as a reminder to us all of the complexity of special educational needs transport and how we should proceed carefully. Perhaps they are words of advice to potential scheme authorities, although I presume that there is no need for them to include provision for special educational needs in their pilot schemes, and many might find it advisable to steer well clear. 
 I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mark Hoban: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in page 2, line 29, leave out
'has the meaning given by section 444(5)'
 and insert 'means 1 mile.'. 
 This is a probing amendment. It is intended to air the issue of statutory walking distance. The current position is that free transport is provided for primary schoolchildren who have to walk more than 2 miles to school and secondary schoolchildren who have to walk more than 3 miles. 
 I am sure that we will touch on the issues that face rural areas later in the Committee's proceedings. However, as was mentioned on Second Reading, in many urban areas congestion problems arise not from children travelling more than 2 or 3 miles to their primary or secondary school, but from children being taken by car to school where the distance from home is less than 2 or 3 miles. 
 I represent a suburban constituency where few children are entitled to free school transport by virtue of their journey from home to school. It is notable that traffic congestion in my constituency is far less during school holidays than it is during term time. By sticking to the 2 and 3-mile limits, to what extent are we requiring scheme authorities to grasp the nettle of congestion in urban areas where journeys are short? 
 The Audit Commission study on school transport found that over 60 per cent. of primary schoolchildren who live between 1 and 2 miles from their school travel by car, and that about 30 per cent. of secondary school pupils who live between 2 and 3 miles from school travel by car. If we were to force LEAs to provide free transport for pupils who live more than a mile from school, that might make them look more carefully at congestion in urban areas. Coupled with the ability to charge—which we will debate later—it would give 
 them some means of financing schemes that meet the needs of pupils who live closer to their schools and of reducing the burden on our roads, which is particularly great at home time and when children go to school in the morning. 
 As the Bill is currently drafted, local authorities might not choose to address congestion in urban areas. The amendment is intended to probe the Government and to press them to encourage LEAs to tackle that problem.

Stephen Twigg: I welcome the opportunity to explore this issue. The hon. Member for Fareham once again demonstrates a point that has come up at other stages both today and on Second Reading. The enabling character of the Bill is such that it has different relevance to different communities. My constituency is similar to the hon. Gentleman's in that I doubt that there are many children in it who are covered by the provisions of the current legislation in respect of statutory walking distances. However, there are different needs in different parts of the country.
 The current system is that LEAs must ensure that free transport is provided where pupils of compulsory school age live beyond the statutory walking distances of 2 miles for those under 8 and 3 miles for older children. The first thing to do is to accept fully the hon. Gentleman's point that those distances, which relate to legislation that dates back 60 years, do not reflect the distances that many children and their parents are willing to walk in the modern age, for all sorts of usually understandable reasons. 
 The hon. Gentleman quoted some research; the national travel survey shows that 83 per cent. of pupils will walk a mile or less to school, but only 45 per cent. will walk between 1 and 2 miles, and just 16 per cent. will walk between 2 and 3 miles. Many children living between 1 and 3 miles from school travel in all sorts of other ways, including by car, taxi or bus. Many of those options can be hugely expensive for the families. 
 I accept that this is a probing amendment, but I just put on record that, were the amendment to be passed, there would be a substantial cost to local authorities. However, this probing amendment is useful, because it reminds us that we need to meet the needs of all pupils. We have rightly been reminded, generally by those critical of the Bill, of the needs of those who travel a very long way, usually in rural areas, to their nearest suitable school and some of the issues that that brings up. The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) mentioned that this morning, and a number of hon. Members from all parties did so on Second Reading. 
 However, there is also a set of issues about the needs of pupils who live between 1 and 3 miles away from school, and I welcome the opportunity for that to be explored. On Second Reading, I recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) made an interesting contribution about his constituency and those who fall just outside the 3-mile parameter. The advantage of the flexibility of the Bill is that it will enable consideration to be given to children in that 
 1 to 3-mile category, and it will potentially give them access to subsidised or concessionary transport schemes that might not be available to them at the moment. 
 We know that there are many children, particularly at secondary schools, who walk or cycle more than a mile, and in some cases substantially more. That reminds us that a lot depends on the school, the local authority, and the willingness to countenance the issues. An example that has been quoted elsewhere is that of Kesgrave high school near Ipswich in Suffolk, where 60 per cent. of pupils regularly cycle several miles to school along a sophisticated network of cycle paths. The Department for Transport has just announced a £10 million extension of the national cycle network to schools, which would improve the cycling infrastructure and make it possible for more children to cycle safely to school. 
 We did not believe that anyone had put forward a suitable and workable alternative to the 2 and 3-mile provisions of 1944. In putting forward his proposal, the hon. Member for Fareham gives me the opportunity to reinforce that point and to say that a potential benefit of the Bill is that we can enable access to forms of transport that might not currently be available, in particular for those children who live just within those statutory walking distances. I welcome the opportunity to say that. In light of that, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Mark Hoban: As the Minister said, this is very much a probing amendment. If we are to achieve the objectives of the Bill relating to reducing congestion in urban areas, we need to encourage local authorities to consider the issues, particularly in the context of encouraging or facilitating the provision of transport to children living less than 3 miles away from their secondary school. The purpose of the amendment was to raise that point, and I am concerned that, at the moment, local authorities might choose not to go down that route. Given the amount of traffic congestion in urban areas—a grave amount in some parts of the country—and given continuing house-building and development, and the pressures that that puts on the infrastructure, we need to tackle the issue of excessive use of car journeys to school if we are to relieve some of the pressure on the infrastructure. Having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mark Hoban: I beg to move amendment No. 54, in page 2, line 30, at end insert—
 '(3A) The scheme shall have regard to the need to be consistent with the scheme authority's transport policy statement prepared under section 509AA of the Education Act 1996.'.
 This amendment was suggested by the Special Educational Consortium. It is intended to tease out the interaction between the Bill and the provision of post-16 transport, and particularly to find out how the Bill will affect children with special educational needs. The Government are committed to expanding the section of the prospectus dealing with post-16 transport, as is shown by their response to the Select Committee 
 report. The prospectus states that pilots might also trial closer links with post-16 transport policies, leading to a more consistent provision for older pupils. 
 The Royal National Institute of the Blind welcomed the opportunity to take part in the Department for Education and Skills working group on the provision of education transport for 16 to 19-year-olds. Guidance for the transport support arrangements for that age group states: 
 ''Good practice suggests that wherever possible, LEAs and their partners should provide transport support until at least the age of 21, and ideally up to the age of 25.'' 
Despite the guidance, there is concern that many disabled students over the age of 19 find it difficult to get support for their transport costs from the LEA, even though they are funded to continue in education by the Learning and Skills Council. An issue raised with me when visiting special schools and talking to special educational needs groups is that the post-16 provision for many of those young people needs additional support. Because of the nature of some of their disabilities, many young people with special educational needs have to stay in further education beyond the normal cut-off age of 18 or 19. 
 The RNIB has collected information concerning existing support. The Black Country Connexions partnership reports that three out of four LEAs in its area will not fund the transport costs of disabled students beyond the age of 19. If we are to continue to help young people with special educational needs access further education, we must ensure that there is continuing transport provision for them, and that may require financial support. This is a probing amendment, and I would welcome the Minister's comments.

Stephen Twigg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and to the RNIB, which, as he rightly said, is engaged in this important discussion with us. As he explained, local education authorities are required to follow clear criteria about the transport support they offer to sixth-form-age students—16 to 19-year-olds. We are well aware of the challenge that he set out concerning the barriers to participation that transport costs constitute for many 16 to 19-year-olds, and how they particularly affect those with disabilities and special educational needs.
 We made it clear in publishing the Bill and the prospectus that their primary purpose is to reduce car trips on the journey to and from school. However, beyond that, we want pilots to focus on different forms of provision suited to their local priorities. Under the heading of scheme objectives, the prospectus that sits alongside the Bill sets out a non-exhaustive list of areas that might be considered, one of which is closer links with post-16 transport policies leading to more consistent provision for older pupils. 
 I hope that hon. Members will agree that in the context of the Bill, scheme authorities are best placed to decide what schemes they want to develop, and where extended and improved provision should be targeted to meet local priorities best. Providing guidelines that include closer post-16 links and 
 establishing a more seamless provision of transport across the age groups in the prospectus already addresses the issues raised by the amendment. 
 I encourage authorities to come forward with proposals that make that link. The hon. Gentleman has certainly assisted that process by tabling the amendment, but it is not the best vehicle for encouraging such action. I therefore ask him to withdraw it.

Mark Hoban: I am grateful to the Minister for his reassurance. Will he consider a broader issue? Post-16 education is funded by the Learning and Skills Council, but transport is funded by LEAs. If there were a change in responsibilities, aligning both transport and funding for education, would it make the problem far easier to tackle than is currently the case? Having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

John Pugh: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 31, leave out from beginning to end of line 11 on page 3.

Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 49, in page 2, line 33, at end insert
'and this shall include— 
 (a) the basis on which the charge will be calculated, 
 (b) the arrangements for increasing the charges, 
 (c) the availability of concessionary fares, and 
 (d) the method of collection.'. 
Amendment No. 33, in page 2, line 33, at end insert— 
 '(1A) Income from the charges shall be applied only to furthering the objectives of the scheme.'. 
New clause 2—Local authority revenue— 
 '(1) No account shall be taken of the revenues derived from any scheme made pursuant to this Act in determining the funding of schools and local education authorities. 
 (2) In determining the proportion of a local education authority's budget to be transferred to any school, no account shall be taken of any expenditure on school transport incurred by that school.'.

John Pugh: I am sorry to say that consensus breaks down at this point. I began my speech this morning by quoting Mr. Sykes' evidence to the Education Committee. He said that the sole and principal purpose of the Bill is to row back from previous commitments to school transport that Governments have given under previous legislation. I concur with that hypothesis and intend to present an irrefutable argument about why that is a bad thing to do.
 It is a traditional, well-established view that it should not be less costly for one child to go to school than another child. That is the philosophy behind the current legislation. When costs were involved because walking was not an option, the assumption was that the local authority paid. Thus, there was no identifiable inequity in access at that point. When that legislation was drafted, the majority of children walked or cycled to school and occasionally went by 
 public transport, which, in those days, was remarkably economical. Much research shows that, when children arrive at school, having walked and cycled, they are in a far more biddable and ready state for education than when they had travelled by other means. Members of the Committee will certainly recall from their school days that that was often the usual way in which they travelled to school. I attended five different schools and I do not recall getting any form of motorised transport, apart from the odd trolley bus and that does not really count. Such travel arrangements did not have much effect on my behaviour, but I reflect on how much worse it could have been had I not travelled in such a way. 
 Nevertheless, the counter arguments that were presented on Second Reading seemed to impress certain Labour Back Benchers. Two points were made in particular. It was said that children from poor families might incur some cost, even though they lived within the 3 or 2-mile limit and that there was some social inequity in that. It was also said that children from rich families who lived outside the 3 or 2-mile limit could in many cases well afford to pay for the travel. That appealed to the social conscience of many Labour Members and persuaded them that there was some merit in rowing back from such an entitlement. 
 The background to the argument was to say that we are living in a changed world, not in a world in which it is always safe for children to walk or cycle to school, even when they can. In fact, children generally seem more reluctant to walk or cycle to school than they were in the past. The roads are congested and dangerous, and the cost of public transport—often the favoured option—is becoming increasingly expensive since it has been deregulated. If we take that new problem as the real excuse for the Bill, there are obviously other remedies, one of which would be to work hard on making roads to school safe. Many local authorities are currently doing that, not always with tremendous effect. 
 One local authority mysteriously planted throughout the borough little yellow arrows pointing in the direction of the school. That was supposed to lead to a massive transfer of children from the car to the pavement. Most children were mystified by the arrows and, over time, I am sorry to say that they were eroded or rubbed out—hopefully, by the march of children on their way to school, but I am not entirely convinced that that was the case. It could have been caused by dog owners walking their dogs late at night, for all I know. The priority is safer routes to schools, whether or not children need help with the travel. There are children who are near to a school and have quite a dangerous road to cross. They need a safe route to school, irrespective of whether any travel scheme would incorporate them within it. The point about working on safer routes to schools applies whether or not children need subsidising. I do not think that one can argue that children who are approximate or very near to a school and who will not qualify for travel 
 schemes, or children who are affluent but who are within the 2-mile or 3-mile limit are any the less vulnerable or at risk when routes to school are unsafe. 
 There is an overall priority to make routes safe. If the thrust of any travel schemes is to ignore that or to concentrate on not doing that, its effects will not be wholly beneficial. I will turn to the other side of the coin: richer families can afford to pay.

Jim Knight: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on to another part of the debate, I want to ask him about a case in my constituency that I discussed on Second Reading. The village of Worth Matravers is 2.9 miles away from Swanage middle school, down a very narrow country lane that is not well lit. How do we make that route safer, apart from by giving people a safe form of motorised transport to school?

John Pugh: There is nothing in legislation to stop a local authority putting a safe scheme in—a bus or whatever. That is not a good case for reneging on the existing entitlement of children who lie beyond the 2.9-mile limit. In the debate, we were always going to discuss the one child who is right on the cusp, as it were. When we come to Members' London allowances and things like that, we get exactly the same sort of issue. There will always be those issues at the margins. We should accept them and take them as not substantially moving on the debate.
 The view could be taken that some families, through no particular merit, have ample resources and benefit from a scheme whereas other, more deserving, people who live within the 3-mile limit do not. If one examines the effects of that, those are precisely the families who will have one, two, or, in some cases, three cars. Where their children do not get free transport to school they will undoubtedly employ a car and an extra trip will be made. The larger the family, the more incentive there is to do that. Larger families on moderate incomes, with whom I have much sympathy, will be adversely affected by rowing back on this entitlement.

Mark Hoban: The hon. Gentleman talked about the issue of larger families. A specific amendment tackles that later on. They are the sorts of people who might end up buying a second car to take their children to school. The cost-benefit analysis might indicate that paying for many children on a bus is greater than the cost of buying a car, if one considers the lifecycle of a car. Therefore, more people will be forced on to the road because of charging, as opposed to people being taken off the road and traffic congestion being reduced, which the measure seeks to achieve.

John Pugh: I should declare an interest, because although my children are all quite large now, at one stage I had four children under five, and I can empathise with the large family's predicament. I know of large families in my constituency for whom it is simpler and more economical to put the children in the car and take them to the school gate, even if there is a bus stop right outside.
 At the end of the day, we must say to ourselves, ''What does this legislation achieve?'' We can all make a case for school buses, for transport subsidies, for encouraging cycling and so on. However, every case that we can make falls within the existing powers of local authorities—except the ability to renege on the entitlement of families who live beyond the current statutory limits. Existing pilots can, in every respect, accomplish what the Bill seeks to produce—other than varying the charging regime. Even if existing local authority powers do not seem to have accomplished the task, all local authorities already have the power to innovate. 
 I challenge the Minister to tell us what can be done by the Bill that cannot currently be done by local authorities under the power to innovate given to them by the Government. The Bill is a rather fancy wrapping to remove what I think the Secretary of State called a legislative straitjacket or stranglehold—but I correctly described that as reneging on an existing entitlement. 
 During the debate the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) made an eloquent speech saying that he could not think of an a priori argument that would force him to die in a ditch over existing entitlement. That was a sound honest point. However, I am not just presenting an a priori argument, I am talking about a complete lack of rationale for the measure. We do not want to enact anything that reverses an entitlement if it seems to do so little else. 
 I shall speak briefly to new clause 2, which deals with a theme developed by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale when he challenged the Secretary of State to say that whatever money was raised via school transport schemes would not be used in some other way by the local authority—would not be parked, earmarked, set aside or ring-fenced—and would not affect how local authorities are funded by the Government. 
 It is possible for local authorities to ring-fence their transport account if they wish, and it is also possible for local authorities to be mandated to do so. However, it has never been possible to see that the Government are giving an honest deal when the rate support grant is announced. None the less, I expect Governments to make allowance for the revenue that some local authorities expect to receive when the schemes are up and running. That will happen, but we will not be able to detect it. Although the Government have made promises, it will be difficult to see whether they have delivered on them. 
 Finally, I turn to a critique of amendment No. 9, which I did not frame myself. It belongs to the ''razed earth'' school of amendments, because it would remove large chunks and swathes of the Bill, and it has certain inelegant features that I had not detected until I reread it. It would seem to exclude voluntary schemes that do not even imply reneging on existing entitlements. It might, therefore, be more appropriate if I held back some of my fire and waited until Report. However, this is a fundamental point of principle between the parties; it is about whether it is genuinely 
 worthwhile removing, for a spurious set of reasons, an entitlement that has existed for some time and done a lot of good.

Mark Hoban: I join the consensus on this side of the Room in objecting to the principle of charging. I am sure that it does not require an Act of Parliament to enable people to make voluntary contributions towards school transport. The hon. Member for Southport should not have many regrets over the scorched-earth style of drafting that he adopted.
 This is one of the key issues behind the Bill. For 60 years, free school transport for families has been enshrined in legislation as a right, and the Bill would remove it. We need to be wary of the fact that the Bill will enable local authorities to charge for transport that has hitherto been free. We will return to this topic later, because of the way in which the Bill is drafted. The provision may, perhaps, be a once and for all change in the entitlement of families to free school transport for their children. 
 It is regrettable that a Labour Government are seeking to impose what I consider to be a tax on families who wish to send their children to school. It is a tax that they cannot avoid, so in that regard it is a good tax; there will not be a problem with people trying to avoid it. However, I am sure there will be a problem with collection; we will address that later. The introduction of charging will mean that people who are above the cut-off level for free school transport will suffer, and families in urban areas will be penalised because of where they live. 
 Members of all parties who represent rural constituencies should recognise the cost that the Bill is likely to impose on their constituents. We must think very carefully about introducing charging. It would have a significant effect on some families.

David Kidney: A few minutes ago, the hon. Gentleman reminded us of the desirability of getting off the road cars making journeys of between 1 and 3 miles to school, and he urged the Minister to make journeys of over a mile free to pupils. If he is against charging, is he proposing that that should be funded by a new charge on the taxpayer?

Mark Hoban: The hon. Gentleman has considerable experience of serving on Committees, so I am surprised that he does not recognise opportunities to table probing amendments, stimulate debates and open up discussion about what legislation entails. That is all I have been trying to do.
 The amendment is important in that it would remove the right of schemes to charge for school transport, and I support it. We need to think about the objectives of the Bill and whether charging will lead to their being achieved. I fear that charging will add to road congestion because many families will take their children to school by car. In evidence to the Select Committee, reference was made to an LEA that charges £500 for children to attend a denominational school. We need only think about three or four 
 children being charged that for the economics that I outlined in my intervention on the hon. Member for Southport to add up. In that situation, the costs of car ownership are far outweighed by the costs of sending children to school by bus. 
 Local authorities that put forward schemes need to think about whether charging will add to the problem. If charging reaches a high enough level, it could make the problems on our roads worse, and the Bill would be counter-productive because all it would do is to add to the problems. That is why charging might present difficulties when these measures are implemented. 
 It is also wrong in principle for charges to be levied on children's journeys to school. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale said, this is a third-term tax rise; its purpose is to fund the growing black hole in the Government's finances. 
 Other amendments in the group are designed to tease out some of the key issues, and I shall now turn to them, and to the new clause. 
Jim Knight rose—

Mark Hoban: If the hon. Gentleman is going to speak in support of the amendment I will be delighted, but I fear that his loyalty to the party cause will preclude him from doing so. Therefore, I will delay the excitement of listening to his remarks.
 Amendment No. 49 is intended to tease out of the Government some of the practical implications of charging for school transport. The prospectus must give guidance to potential scheme authorities as to how the charging mechanism will work. Our suggested paragraph (a) means that we need to understand what the basis of the charge might be. One could go for a flat-rate charge, so that everyone using the bus paid the same amount. That would be easy to administer, and there are some attractions to that, but of course a flat-rate charge would mean that people living close at hand would probably end up subsidising those who lived far away, who would pay the same rate. There would be no correlation between the charge and the extent to which someone used the bus. The Government might find that attractive; they could charge just one rate, as buses in London charge a £1 fare regardless of the length of the journey. 
 If there were a distance-related charge, people living close at hand would not subsidise those who lived further away. Would the higher charge for those who lived in more outlying, perhaps rural, areas dissuade such people from using a bus, because the fare would be too high? Most bus fares are distance-related, but there is a trade-off between flat-rate and distance-related charges, and the Government and scheme authorities need to think about that in relation to any guidance given on the matter. 
 Suggested paragraph (b) is about the basis of any future increases. It is all very well having a scheme that, on day one, sets out a charge that those consulted about the scheme think is fair and reasonable, but what happens in subsequent years? What if there is poor settlement for schools, not dissimilar to that 
 experienced by many schools in 2003-04, and LEAs decide to increase the charges above the rate of inflation, in order to try to recover a shortfall in grant from Government? Some clarity on the basis of increases in charges would be good. 
 What happens about concessionary fares? We talked about issues connected with amendment No. 60, which in a sense identified a potential concessionary fare, whereby people would not pay the full cost of school transport if their child had special educational needs; they would simply pay the excess, and the normal charge would be paid for by the LEA. That would be a concessionary fare, and we need to have the basis of concessionary fares in the scheme application. How will we tackle such issues? Many groups out there are concerned about the impact on charging in terms of inclusion—and I mean social inclusion, rather than inclusion from a special educational needs perspective. We need to make sure that concessionary fares are discussed in the scheme consultation. 
 We also need to think about who will collect the fare revenue. Will there be conductors on every bus, collecting the flat-rate or distance-related charge? Will we expect the head teacher to collect the money from pupils at school, and so add to the burdens that head teachers already face? Will we expect the LEA to require parents to set up a standing order, to enable the LEA to collect the fare revenue in the most efficient way from people who use the school transport? 
 Will we expect parents to pay daily, weekly, monthly or termly? Clearly, collecting one amount per term would make life easy for local education authorities, and would cut down on transaction costs, but what happens if a family cannot afford to pay in one fell swoop for that term's transport? Certainly, if one charges £500 a term for school transport, a number of families would find that difficult to pay. I would therefore look to spread the cost of payments across a term. 
 Revenue collection sounds a dull topic in many respects, but how schools operate and how we collect the revenue will affect households' finances. The purpose of the amendment is really to tease out some of those details, and perhaps to get the Department to think in its consultations about the next draft of the prospectus and consider the issues with local education authorities. That way, before the schemes are unleashed on an unsuspecting public, there could be some guidance to help those consulted to determine whether they think that the scheme should apply in their area. 
 Next I shall talk about amendment No. 33 and new clause 2. The concerns raised on Second Reading were about what will happen to revenue raised by the scheme. One element of that concern was to ensure that, where possible, income generated was ring-fenced and kept solely for the purposes of the Bill; we will come later to amendment No. 50, which covers in detail possible uses for the revenue. We must ring-fence the revenue to ensure that it is used to tackle the problems identified so far in Committee and on Second Reading, rather than to subsidise other aspects 
 of LEAs' activities. There is a risk that some of the money could be used in that way, and we do not want to give LEAs an incentive to raise the charges to cover funding shortfalls. 
 On new clause 2, we are concerned about how the Treasury will react to the money raised. I am sure that the Secretary of State was right to assure us that none of the money will be taken into account by the Treasury, but history has shown that where extra revenue sources are found, the amount of support that bodies get is diminished. 
 Let me give an example relevant to the Department of Education and Skills regarding the introduction of tuition fees—the £1,100 up-front fee. According to the Department's annual report, higher education funding per pupil for 2001-02 was £5,020. The following year, the fees were introduced and an extra £1,100 was paid by each student. Therefore, one would expect funding to have gone up to £6,120, but no, it did not. The additional resources raised by tuition fees did not flow through to the universities. The Government have form on this matter. [Interruption.] Labour Members express surprise, but if they look at the Department's annual report they will see that the introduction of up-front tuition fees did not result in an increase of funding to universities. The per capita funding per head demonstrates that. 
 I am concerned that the Treasury will find a way to claw back the additional revenue that LEAs will raise through the charging, and that resources available to LEAs will not rise, but will remain unchanged. I perceive scepticism from Labour Members, but we have seen that reality in the context of other measures introduced by the Department of Education and Skills to help other sectors. We want to prevent LEAs from suffering a clawback of the money raised. 
 There is also a concern that there is pressure on LEAs to cut back the school transport budget when the amount or proportion of LEA money to be passported down to schools increases. With less money available to LEAs from the centre, there is a concern that if we increase the proportion to be passported, school transport budgets will be under pressure. We want to exclude school transport budgets from that process, and from the calculation of the proportion of money to be passported. 
 Amendment No. 33 and new clause 2 are designed to protect the money raised, so that parents forced to pay the charges know that the money will not be clawed back by the Treasury but will be applied to the scheme objectives. If parents are to be charged for school transport, they should receive assurance from the Government that the money will not be diverted.

Jim Knight: I do not want to take up much of the Committee's time, but I want to ensure that voices other than the Minister's speak in favour of the principle of charging. I notice that the hon. Member for Fareham said that he opposed charging in principle. I find that odd, given that his party now supports the congestion charge for London, and that what we are discussing is a charge to deal with
 congestion. Many of us have been won over by the operation of the scheme in London, and think that there are circumstances in which charging to deal with congestion is appropriate. By offering charging in the context of pilots, we would maximise the flexibility that local education authorities could employ when devising new ways to deal with congestion and other transport problems that, as all Committee members acknowledge, exist for people getting to and from school.
 I go back to the example of Worth Matravers, which I raised in my intervention on the hon. Member for Southport. For example, the area covered by Swanage middle school in my constituency includes some villages that are 2.9 miles away, and some that are further away. If we had a flat-rate universal scheme with an affordable fare of perhaps £1 a day, that might create opportunities for a much better service for all pupils at such schools, although I do not say that it necessarily would. Such pupils would include the majority who lived within the 3-mile radius, many of whom have no option of public transport, or a safe lane to cycle or walk down. Such a scheme might create a better, safer environment for them to get to and from school by walking, cycling or some form of bus. I accept that schemes that charge in very rural areas such as that represented by the hon. Member for Hexham might not be appropriate. Certainly, means-testing would be appropriate, as proposed in the Bill. 
 I support amendment No. 27, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, which would extend means-testing beyond those entitled to free school meals. I stress that my support is for the creation of pilots.

David Drew: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Jim Knight: Of course, as my hon. Friend asked so forcefully.

David Drew: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the biggest problems is the charging for post-16 students? One of the dilemmas is that there are poor post-16 students. I welcome the Government's education maintenance allowances, but such students might still pay a charge for using the school coach, while relatively better-off but younger pupils went free. There are some anomalies in the system.

Jim Knight: Absolutely. There are problems and anomalies in operating transport to and from our schools. We have discussed the work done by Tomlinson on the 14-to-19 age group. Schools and further education colleges will merge more and more; they are starting to do so in my constituency. We need the pilots and we need to maximise their flexibility. I support, as the Bill does, keeping open the option of charging in those limited pilot areas.

Huw Edwards: As I represent a very rural area, my instincts are more with the Opposition parties on this issue. The fundamental problem in the towns that I represent—Monmouth, Abergavenny, Chepstow—is not congestion, but that most pupils live a long way from school. Roughly
 40 per cent., possibly 45 per cent., of pupils at Monmouth comprehensive school go there by one form of transport or another. The great majority of those who use school transport use contract buses, although they might use other buses that serve the area. Such buses are an absolute lifeline.
 I accept that the provisions are only for pilot areas, but I would like my hon. Friend the Minister to reiterate that, because there will be a certain amount of political distortion about the intentions of the Bill. I do not suggest for a moment that Opposition parties have distorted anything, but there will be such distortion at a local level and I hope that the Minister will give the assurance that there is nothing compulsory about the charging. I happen to believe in devolution, and I do not believe that the Welsh Assembly would wish to introduce charging in a rural area such as mine. However, I have referred to an important principle; I ask the Minister to establish that there is nothing compulsory about the charging introduced by the Bill. I have some anxiety that such charging may establish a precedent. Will my hon. Friend accept that there are fundamentally different problems between mainly urban areas where the great bulk of pupils do not require school transport and those in rural areas, such as mine, where a high proportion of pupils do require transport to get to school?

Stephen Twigg: We have moved to an important part of the Bill. I shall deal with amendments Nos. 9, 49 and 33 and new clause 2 in turn, but first I wish to respond to a point that I overlooked in an earlier debate. The hon. Member for Fareham asked whether the revised prospectus would be available for us to debate on Report. I am happy to give him and the Committee the undertaking that it will be. Clearly, several matters that have been raised, including those raised in this debate, are relevant to the revision of the prospectus.
 The hon. Gentleman referred also to previous commitments that were given about tuition fees. I am reliably informed by those who know more about such matters than I do that the plans that we inherited when we came to power in 1997 would have resulted in a significant cut in higher education funding. The up-front fees ensured that that cut in funding could be reversed, so the commitment given in Committee and on the Floor of the House that it was new money for the universities was kept to. Had that commitment not been made and new money not been raised, universities would have experienced a substantial cut on top of the 30 per cent. cut in student funding that they had already experienced during the previous Government. That is probably the most partisan that I have been during today's proceedings. We might return to our earlier consensual approach, but perhaps not in the current debate. 
 Amendment No. 9 is central to the Bill and to its ability to make an impact. It would have several effects. It would remove the possibility for LEAs to charge. It would remove from local authorities the capacity to then redistribute the subsidy for home-to-school transport according to their local priorities. It 
 would also remove from the Bill the concept of the protected child, which I am sure was an unintended consequence. 
 As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on Second Reading, under the current system, only a small minority of pupils benefit from free or assisted home- to-school transport. A survey conducted jointly by ourselves, the Confederation of Education Service Managers and the National Audit Office in the summer of 2003 suggests that the number of beneficiaries of the current system is about 700,000 in England, or about 10 per cent. In Wales, it is somewhat higher. We estimate that it is about 20 per cent.

Huw Edwards: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving us details of the research that has been undertaken, but just as we distinguish between post offices that serve urban and rural areas, perhaps we could distinguish between schools that serve urban and rural areas. I wonder if the figures would be different if he considered the number of children who rely on free school transport in urban areas.

Stephen Twigg: That is precisely why I am happy to give my hon. Friend the assurance that he sought earlier. The relevance of such an approach will differ between different communities. Indeed, it will differ within single local education authorities for the reasons that we explored in our discussions this morning. What might be relevant to a constituency like his might not be relevant to my constituency, or such matters might be neither relevant to an urban or suburban constituency nor to a hugely rural constituency. I want to explore that argument now. The purpose of the Bill is to enable local authorities that wish to do so to pilot different approaches according to local needs and circumstances. If we have figures according to the levels of rurality, I shall ensure that they are placed in the Library. I shall also write to my hon. Friend outlining them. The figures for Wales might be separate from those for England.
 The national travel survey records a fairly constant figure of 20 per cent. of pupils taking the bus to school in England and a higher figure of 30 per cent. in Wales. That suggests that as many families pay for school transport as receive free or assisted transport from or through the local education authority. 
 Recent research conducted by my Department suggests that, because of their circumstances, parents on lower incomes are more likely to have to pay for their child's travel to school than those on higher incomes. The same research, which I referred to earlier, shows that two thirds of children who take the bus to school have to pay more than £7 each per week to get to school. That is in the region of £300 per year per child, which demonstrates that a significant number of children today pay significant sums of money to get to and from school.

John Pugh: I am interested in the statistics. Do they take account of the amount that different socio-economic groups pay on public transport, or do they take account of the amount paid by those who provide their own private transport? By themselves, the figures could indicate either.

Stephen Twigg: The figures to which I referred relate to public transport. The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point about the use of other modes of transport; but it does not undermine the statistics, which show that a significant number of families already pay quite a lot of money for their children to get to school; and that the number of people from the poorest families using that mode of transport is greater than the number from the better-off families.

John Pugh: Does the Minister accept that families are just as poor if they pay at the petrol pump as if they had paid at the bus stop?

Stephen Twigg: Yes, but I am not sure what point the hon. Gentleman is trying to make. The reality is that those who take the bus are paying the fares; and the number from the poorest families are greater, partly because the numbers benefiting from the current set-up, with the statutory walking distances, are disproportionately from better-off families. Perhaps I was not explicit about that part of the equation.
 A substantial subsidy is currently provided for home-to-school transport. We reckon that, in 2002-03, it was about £675 million in England and £70 million in Wales. As we know, that money is paid according to distance criteria rather than ability to pay. We will obviously deal in detail with the ability to pay on later amendments. In short, the central thrust of the Bill is that the current system fails adequately to address issues of equity and fairness. A number of my hon. Friends have said so today and on Second Reading. 
 I want to make it crystal clear that the Bill would allow local education authorities that wish to do so to charge—the devolution point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards). It will not enable them to do as they please; it will enable them to make small charges for school travel if they feel it is required. There is no compulsion in the Bill; neither is compulsion implied by it. Furthermore, plans to charge parents would need to be made strictly on the ability to pay, with the expectation that it would be at a level that did not lead to a shift from bus to car. I reiterate the comments made on Second Reading by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills that bus fares will remain heavily subsidised. 
 The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) spoke on Second Reading about the cost of providing school transport in Dorset. There is no suggestion that a child would be charged the actual full cost, which he said was £570 a year. That is not what we suggest. A substantial subsidy will still be paid, but it will be distributed differently.

Mark Hoban: I return to something the Minister said before he started talking about recovering the full cost of transport. Does he believe it to be feasible for a scheme authority to deliver the improvements that he would like to see in school transport simply by using pump-priming money, without an additional increase in resources that might come from charging?

Stephen Twigg: I think that that is highly unlikely because the pump-priming money is a small sum that is designed to assist with the set-up costs. The difference that it could make in the provision of service improvements is quite limited. Clearly, if a local authority comes forward under the Bill with a scheme that seeks to do that, we will take that into consideration. The sum that we are talking about in pump-priming is too small for that.

Mark Hoban: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification and I will go a step further. Is it his expectation that for schemes to obtain ministerial approval and to meet some of the objectives set out in the prospectus, there will have to be an increase in resources to support the school travel scheme and that that increase will either come from the money raised from the council tax payer or through charging for home-to-school transport?

Stephen Twigg: A substantial amount of money is being spent right now and we want to see whether it can be spent more effectively.
 Clearly, as the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Southport said, there are many things that authorities do, and can do, right now without the Bill. Some excellent things have been done and we encourage them. Those authorities that are not pilot authorities are able to proceed. 
 Local government, on a cross-party basis, has said to us that if it is able to apply a modest charge on a means-tested basis, it will have some extra resource in its local system that it can then use to improve the wider transport system. In the light of that, it is unlikely that schemes will be put to us that do not involve at least some element of charging for some people who currently receive free transport. If another scheme came forward that did do that, we would consider it. However, I find it hard from first principles to see a way in which we could get a scheme of that sort that would both fulfil the requirements of the Bill and not be something that would be allowed anyway, regardless of those requirements. 
 To return to what I was saying, the Bill seeks to encourage LEAs to make fairer arrangements that cater for many more children in the area. That is important and returns to some of the earlier discussion in response to the hon. Gentleman's probing amendment about the 1 mile. It considers some of those young people who currently fall outside the statutory requirements. My hon. Friends the Members for South Dorset (Jim Knight) and for Stafford have mentioned that again during today's debates. 
 The hon. Member for Southport was slightly too easy in his dismissal of that point in saying that there has to be a cut-off point. In this legislation we are saying that there is the possibility of having a more flexible approach than that, which could benefit a much larger number of parents and families. 
 The Bill aims to give local authorities that flexibility in targeting the overall subsidy for school transport more equitably and according to local priorities. We 
 recognise that the introduction of charges may lead to some parents shifting from buses to cars in the way that has been described. In targeting the existing subsidy and any additional revenue to a bigger proportion of the school population than currently receives free and assisted transport, the net impact is expected to be a decrease in the number of pupils travelling by car. 
 I accept that this is the nub of the issue: the trade off between the downside, where some of those who currently get free buses may switch to the car because of the introduction of a charge, and the people who may benefit from a subsidised bus or another improvement in local transport to school and who would therefore not use the car any longer. The devil in such things is, of course, in the detail. The purpose of the work on the prospectus and the school travel schemes and of our discussions with local government and others is to have schemes where the net effect is to reduce the car run to schools. That is critical. 
 All pupils who are eligible for free school meals and who go to their nearest suitable school would continue to get free school transport. We will return to that important issue when discussing later amendments. 
 To summarise on this amendment, the small charges that may be introduced in scheme areas, coupled with the existing large subsidy for home-to-school transport has the potential to provide revenue for improved, extended and better focused transport services for pupils. There is no public funding available to expand the current free provision. It is vital that we put as much money as possible into front-line services in schools. In many respects, the present system is unfair, because it is based on distance and not on the ability of parents to pay. 
 There is no agenda to remove free travel from any particular group, and the structure of the system would be entirely at the discretion of the local education authority, with important safeguards for those on low incomes. Charges must be set following local consultation, as discussed earlier, and at a level designed not to increase car use. In the light of those points, I ask the hon. Members for Southport and for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) to withdraw their amendment. Before they have the opportunity to do so, I will deal with the other amendments and the new clause grouped with it. 
 Amendment No. 49 was moved by the hon. Member for Fareham. It would place a statutory duty on LEAs to insert details of their charging proposals in travel scheme proposals. Such details would include the basis on which charges are calculated, arrangements for increasing charges, concessionary fares, and the method of collection. 
 Our formal consultation on the draft Bill revealed widespread agreement among local authorities that any introduction of charges for home to school travel should be accompanied by an improvement in the services on offer. The prospectus accompanying the Bill requires scheme applications to explain what LEAs and local transport authorities are doing to 
 ensure that good quality, well maintained, and appropriate vehicles are used on the journey to school. The prospectus goes on to state that: 
 ''Scheme applications must set out local charging policies, making it clear how many pupils will be charged, and the level of proposed charges.'' 
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we would be looking at flat-rate fees and the methods of revenue collection. We do not want to be prescriptive because such matters are best left for LEAs as they develop their schemes. However, he has raised legitimate points, particularly about methods of collection, which we need to discuss further with relevant stakeholders including head teacher associations and bus operators. That must be fully reflected in the prospectus as it is further developed. 
 We see the various requirements as including the details sought by the hon. Gentleman through his amendment. However, the prospectus will go further than that. It states that charges may have a differential effect in scheme areas geographically, as set out by a number of hon. Members during the debate, with some areas as net losers of public funding, and other areas gaining overall. The LEA proposals must provide transparent information about any imbalances between areas generating and absorbing charges. 
 The prospectus also requires scheme applicants to provide a thorough analysis of the impact of charging on different groups of pupils, as set out in the earlier debate on the needs of disabled children and those with special educational needs. It provides for ongoing monitoring and the provision of detailed financial information through annual reports, to be published as part of the overall evaluation of the scheme approach. The place to deal with the important issues raised by the hon. Gentleman is in the prospectus rather than in the Bill, and in the light of that I ask him to withdraw that amendment. 
 Amendment No. 33 and new clause 2 relate to the use of income gained from charges. The amendment seeks to ring-fence revenue from charges so that it is spent only on furthering the objectives of the scheme. We have made it clear at every stage—in the draft prospectus, in the Government response to the Select Committee report, and on Second Reading—that this is not a cost-cutting exercise. The relevant national authority—either the DFES or the Welsh Assembly—will not approve schemes simply about cutting costs. 
 The prospectus accompanying the Bill states categorically: 
 ''LEAs are expected to fund schemes from resources already committed to funding school transport, together with any charges levied on pupils.'' 
It goes on to say: 
 ''Existing funds must continue to support school travel, with budgets uprated each year in line with comparable LEAs'', 
and that 
''all fare income must be invested in improved services.'' 
To ensure that that actually happens, scheme authorities will be obliged to produce annual reports for either the DFES or the National Assembly for Wales. Those reports will contain financial annexes detailing the economics of the scheme, will form part 
 of the overall evaluation of schemes and will be published either by ourselves or the National Assembly. 
 The amendment seeks to achieve the aim I have just outlined by putting a requirement in the Bill for revenue to be spent on furthering scheme aims. It is doubtful whether the amendment would achieve its aim, as an authority which sought to reduce its overall school transport expenditure could argue that it was spending the revenue from charges on scheme aims, was merely reducing its previously existing school transport spend, and would have done so regardless of the provisions of the Bill or membership of the pilot approach. I believe that the approach outlined in the prospectus will achieve the objective set out by the hon. Gentleman and I ask him to withdraw the amendment. 
 New clause 2 provides that DFES and other bodies would be unable to take account of revenue raised from schemes in determining the funding provided to local education authorities. It would also ensure that LEAs could not take account of school transport costs in determining the budget shares of the schools they maintain. We have always made it clear that we expect any charges collected through school travel schemes to be reinvested in improved travel arrangements as I have just set out, which is explained in paragraph 44 of the draft prospectus. 
 I am happy to confirm that the DFES and the National Assembly for Wales have no intention of reducing funding to local authorities on account of income derived from charges for school transport. There are no such assumptions in our spending plans, which are modelled up to 2007-08, and we have no intention of doing so in future. 
 There seems to be some misunderstanding in the second part of the new clause. Home-to-school transport is a responsibility of local education authorities, not schools, and is not taken into account in any way in the delegation of funding to schools. Schools do not in general incur expenditure on home-to-school transport, and if they do so it is unlikely that such expenditure would come out of their delegated budget. That part of the clause is therefore unnecessary and not meaningful. 
 I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the concerns he has legitimately raised today have been responded to fully.

John Pugh: The battle lines have been drawn and will continue to exist. This is a question of dropping an entitlement that was meant to ensure equity of access. Whether one wants to call it flexibility, the removal of a legislative straitjacket or whatever, it is still the removal of an entitlement. It is not made any better by the Minister pleading that only a small number of pupils are affected. That seems wholly irrelevant to the issue. We do not argue that entitlement should be withdrawn simply because a few people are affected. I am unpersuaded that it is the right thing to do; I am also unpersuaded that it is worth doing.
 The Minister's ingenious statistics—I should call them accurate—seem to show that better-off families are already less likely to use public transport. I simply 
 ask why charging them for transport when no charge existed before would make them more likely to use it. I imagine that they would not. 
 Nevertheless, I am minded to withdraw the amendment for procedural reasons. First, to keep my powder dry: I do not want an amendment to fail in Standing Committee leaving me unable to bring it back on Report. Secondly, there is an inelegance in the amendment because it would remove voluntary schemes such as yellow bus schemes, which might reduce current transport costs for pupils. Thirdly, judging by some contributions from the Labour Benches, I feel that we are winning a few friends on the matter, so it may not be worth pressing the point at this juncture. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mark Hoban: I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 3, line 4, at end insert
', or
'(c) who is a registered pupil at the nearest denominational school of the religion to which his parents adhere.'.
 The amendment would include among the group of children who are able to receive free school transport those who attend a denominational school of the faith to which their parents adhere. One of the issues that affects many parents who send their children to a faith school is that many of them labour under the misapprehension that I did until I had a constituency case on the issue, and that is that school transport to such schools is free as of right. That is an issue that causes concern, as some of the discretionary travel schemes, which hitherto provided free transport to children in a denominational school, have been withdrawn and parents who wish to send their child to a denominational school have incurred charges. 
 We need to go back in history to understand why parents may believe that it is a right to receive free transport to a denominational school and to understand the role that guidance from the Department played in creating that sense of a right. That history will show why people may be slightly sceptical about the value of guidance, including the prospectus—history has shown that that guidance can be, and has been, ignored. In the previous debate, we referred to the Education Act 1944. Section 55 of that Act states: 
 ''A local education authority may make such arrangements for the provision of transport and otherwise as they consider necessary or as the Minister may direct for the purpose of facilitating the attendance of pupils at schools or young people's colleges or any course or class provided in pursuance of the scheme of further education in force for their area and may pay any reasonable travelling expenses of such pupils''. 
In the debate on the 1944 Act, R.A. Butler said that section 55 
''is all for the purposes of enabling children to attend schools which are suited to the beliefs and desires of their parents. I can give a definitive undertaking about that.''—[Official Report, 9 May 1944; Vol. 399, c. 1753.]
That set in place a process whereby parents believed that they would get free transport to a denominational school. It is the basis for much of the transport provided to denominational schools. 
 The concern of the Catholic Education Service and Catholic diocese is that the Bill places at risk the concept of parents being able to educate their children according to their beliefs and wishes, as financial considerations and constraints may be substituted for the fundamental beliefs and convictions of parents who wish their child to be educated at a church school. 
 We must bear in mind the nature of some of the populations that attend Catholic schools. In many Catholic schools in deprived urban areas, a high proportion of children are from ethnic minorities—11 per cent. of Catholic schools have 40 per cent. ethnic minority composition, as opposed to 10 per cent. of other maintained schools. In many Catholic schools, a high proportion of children are on free school meals. So, while many would characterise faith schools as being socially exclusive, the experience of many Catholic schools in deprived urban areas is that they are socially inclusive. 
 As I suggested, we have started to see the erosion of discretionary schemes providing free transport for children to attend denominational schools. We have yet to see the impact of that on enrolment in Catholic schools, but we need to recognise that where Catholic schools have agreed with LEAs about the siting of schools, those schools are often sited on the basis of attracting as many children as possible from as wide a catchment area as possible, rather than the basis of maximising the number of children who get free school transport. For example, St. Benedict's college in Colchester is a school whose location was, by agreement with the LEA, specifically designed to serve the widest possible rural area. It is likely to be detrimentally affected by the imposition of charges for home-to-school transport. So the siting of new Catholic schools has been determined by the underpinning of the 1944 Act. 
 The provisions of that Act were replicated in section 9 of the Education Act 1996 and at various intervals some of the issues have been reiterated. A 1994 DFES circular states that 
''many LEAs exercise the discretion afforded by Section 55 to provide free transport or assistance with fares for pupils or students who attend the nearest school or college of their parents' religious denomination, even though they could have attended a non-denominational institution nearer home''. 
Paragraph 31 of the circular adds that 
''the Secretary of State hopes that LEAs will continue to think it right not to disturb well established arrangements of the kind referred to in paragraph 29, some of which have been associated with a local agreement or understanding about the siting of denominational schools. He continues to attach importance to the preservation of the opportunity to choose a school or college in accordance with religious convictions''. 
The DFES circular in 1994 set out clearly the expectations of the Secretary of State that LEAs would not disturb existing travel arrangements for children who wished to attend a denominational school when their parents adhered to that faith. Yet we have seen 
 the erosion of those discretionary travel schemes, despite the guidance given by the Secretary of State in 1994. 
 The Bill gives the opportunity, as far as the pilot areas are concerned, to bring the legislation into line with the 1994 guidance by including children who attend denominational schools within the definition of ''protected child'' and provides that where they are attending that faith school they can have free school transport. This is an important opportunity to address that issue, because a growing number of parents are seeking education for their children in a faith school. There are pressures within the Muslim community for more Muslim schools to be set up to meet their needs. The Bill provides an opportunity for us to consider what is important to parents who believe that the nearest suitable school for their child is not just down the road but is a school that educates children in their faith. 
 In some urban areas, where Catholic schools provide excellent quality education to a wide diversity of ethnic groups, some of the charging arrangements may preclude parents from sending their children to that school. That is a fundamental issue for many parents who send their children to faith schools. Many parents still believe that it is their right to send their children to those schools, and to have free transport to enable them to do so. The Bill should ensure that it is a right, and not simply guidance. I ask the Minister to comment on that.

John Pugh: On Second Reading, the Secretary of State said that he had the ''understanding'' of the Churches, which is an interesting word. I quizzed him on that during the debate and asked him whether ''understanding'' was equivalent to wholehearted endorsement. He was honest and straightforward enough to say no, that was not the case and that there were concerns. Several Church parties have voiced their concerns to members of the Committee.
 I declare an interest: I am a governor of a Catholic high school, which is the only one in my constituency. At present, providing support for travel schemes to denominational schools is discretionary, but in many authorities throughout Lancashire and Merseyside, including Sefton, in my constituency, it is almost taken as mandatory to have a large number of denominational schools; it is accepted practice, for which good arguments are presented by the Churches. A particularly important argument for them is that if there is not some kind of support for travel schemes that ensure that pupils get to denominational schools where such a school is appropriate for them, the social mix of the school will be affected. That is a concern because religious schools are often criticised for appearing to disguise social bias within a religious ethos. They rebut that accusation, but clearly they will not be assisted by a regime that ensures that getting to the school is not a problem for the well-off, but is financially burdensome for the less well-off. 
 It is widely accepted by most local authorities, and it is the current understanding, that for Catholics, the Church of England, Jewish adherents and Muslims, the appropriate school is a Catholic, Church of 
 England, Jewish or Muslim school respectively. The nearest appropriate school was the subject of considerable debate for the Select Committee. There was the celebrated case of the Abbott family, who argued that, as committed atheists, they had the right definitely not to go to the nearest Church of England school, which was not an appropriate school for them. I have a lot of sympathy with that point of view. I am not an atheist, but I can understand the intellectual coherence of the family's argument. 
 It is fair to say that the Churches have concerns that are entirely legitimate, well argued and forcefully put. The current rather mixed practice, whereby in some areas of the country providing transport to denominational schools is accepted as almost mandatory, and in others it does not exist at all, needs the clarity that such an amendment would provide.

Stephen Twigg: It would probably be helpful if I repeated what the Secretary of State said on Second Reading, which is that the Catholic Church certainly does have concerns. I had meetings with the Catholic Education Service to discuss the Bill, but the Church of England is supportive of it, and I am happy to place that on record.
 I cannot agree to amendment No. 42 for a number of reasons, not least because we believe that it would, in practice, be incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. I agree with hon. Members that transport for people attending denominational schools is an important subject. It is a live issue, precisely because of the changes to discretionary practice to which the hon. Gentleman rightly referred. He reminded the Committee that transport has to be provided for pupils attending denominational schools if that is the nearest suitable school and it is outside walking distance. Pupils attend on the same footing as those who attend their neighbourhood school where that is non-denominational. 
 If a school travel scheme were introduced, the effect of the amendment would be that only those pupils attending non-denominational schools would be charged, and that would be illogical. It would result in charging relatively low-income pupils attending non-denominational schools for transport, when pupils from high-income families who were attending denominational schools would be exempt. That clearly raises human rights issues. 
 Amendment No. 42 would provide more favourable treatment to pupils attending denominational schools. The provisions would be vulnerable to challenge on grounds of unequal treatment, and the Secretary of State could not give the Bill an unqualified certificate of European convention on human rights compatibility. 
 It is the view of both the Government and the National Assembly for Wales, and it is confirmed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its report, 
 that the provision of free or subsided school transport must be made without discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief. Many parents exercise parental preference so that their children can attend denominational schools, and in those cases local education authorities now have no obligation to provide transport, as the hon. Gentleman rightly reminded us. It is often provided on a free or subsidised footing, but that is a discretionary not a mandatory provision. I understand that there is growing concern about that, which was reflected in what the hon. Members for Fareham and for Southport said. 
 A survey that we conducted two years ago with the Confederation of Education and Children's Services Managers found that 120 of 150 authorities still provided free transport for pupils who live outside the statutory walking distances and travel to denominational schools that are not otherwise their nearest suitable school, provided that they met a number of eligibility criteria such as baptism or regular church attendance. However, at least 30 LEAs make charges for providing transport for pupils attending denominational schools, unless they are eligible for free school meals. As the hon. Member for Fareham said, some of the charges are very high, such as those in Portsmouth, where according to the 2002 survey the figure was £500 per pupil. 
 The pattern of denominational provision varies enormously. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the north-west of England; in Liverpool, 53 per cent. of secondary schools are denominational, and in Lancashire that figure is 32 per cent. However, there are no denominational schools in some areas, such as Cornwall and North Somerset. Authorities with a high level of denominational provision might be unable to put together school travel plans if they are obliged to provide free transport to all pupils attending denominational schools. We do not think that it is fair to limit participation in the pilot scheme in that way. 
 In my discussions with the Churches, I said that the Bill could provide a vehicle for improving school transport for those attending denominational schools because it is discretionary, and because a number of authorities are choosing to cut back on provision and increase charges. If a scheme is successful in improving the availability of a number of transport services including buses, some of the pupils attending denominational schools could be beneficiaries of that. It is important to put that on the record. 
 For the reasons that I have given, I do not believe that the amendment is workable in the context of the Bill, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

Mark Hoban: I take on board the Minister's comments about how the amendment would work in practice, but I am concerned that when charging is introduced, parents who currently send their children to a denominational school that is not their nearest school will have to pay more to send them to that school. In my constituency, the nearest school is north of Portsmouth or in Southampton, both of which are more than three miles away.
 The risk is that parents who want their children to attend a faith school will be charged, but if they choose to send them to the nearest state school they will face no charge because the school will be less than three miles away. The financial disincentive arising from charging inhibits parents' choice in the education of their children. The amendment refers to religious faith, but it could have mentioned philosophy, for example—or atheism, which the hon. Member for Southport mentioned. We will address the Welsh language shortly. 
 There is a serious issue here. Both major parties want to encourage school choice, but such measures can dissuade parents from exercising that choice, particularly when the school in question is further away than another school.

John Pugh: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is an anomaly in what the Minister said? I do not want to open a can of worms, but he seemed to say that because of human rights legislation it is inappropriate for transport purposes to regard a denominational school as the nearest appropriate school—but it appears that most LEAs, and the Government, are prepared to regard a denominational school as the nearest appropriate school for admissions purposes.

Mark Hoban: I take the hon. Gentleman's comments on board. Admission arrangements are a topic for a new debate, and one that I am sure we shall have in due course. I am concerned that the Bill does not give additional support to parents who wish to send their
 children to a denominational school; it is regrettable that that opportunity has not been taken. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mark Hoban: I beg to move amendment No. 43, in
clause 1, page 3, line 4, at end insert
', or
'(d) who is a registered pupil at a Welsh-language school.'.

Mark Hoban: I shall not take the opportunity to wax lyrical about Welsh language schools at this stage in the debate. It is a pity that the Welsh Assembly has not had the opportunity to complete its scrutiny of the Bill, because its own observations would furnish greater arguments for making sure that there was reference in the Bill to enabling children who wished to speak Welsh to attend a Welsh language school free of charge. I should be grateful if the Minister would response to that brief point.

Stephen Twigg: The subject of the amendment is similar to that of the previous amendment. We all share the desire to support parents who have to make choices that involve travelling great distances. In practice, however, this amendment raises exactly the same human rights and other implications as were raised by the previous amendment. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment, for the same reasons.

Mark Hoban: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Vernon Coaker.] 
Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Five o'clock till Thursday 11 November at twenty-five minutes past Nine o'clock.